We shall see, my brother-in-law is a Miami graduate and lives in Oxford. (Every family has to have its black sheep.) And, the information I'm getting from him indicates that your UNLV analogy might not hold true in football.

Look up the capital improvements budget for last biennium. I don't have time to find the URL again, it takes some shifting through a massive pdf file to find the right line items. Once you get to the right page, you'll see the money is clearly listed.

The capital improvement budget is voted on every two years by the General Assembly. There is no set formula, it's whatever the university lobbyist can get their favorite legislator to sponsor and get through the legislature. So, no it can't be depended upon in any literal sense, but the university has been requesting and receiving this money for years, some years they get more and some years less, depending on need and on the acumen of the university's lobbyists.

The osteopathic college was a favorite of the General Assembly in years past, in part, because of the lobbying skills of the late George Dunigan. George was very instrumental in getting the legislature to pass the bill creating our medical school. He was an employee of the Ohio Osteopathic Association at that time. Later, he was so good at his job that he became an employee of the medical school and lobbied not only for medical school projects but for other Ohio University projects. One time the Columbus Citizen-Journal published a list of the top ten lobbyist in Ohio and George was on that list!

Fair enough but would you concede that having a team that is frisky and feels like they belong on the same floor as a P4-5 'decent' team would get the alumni more engaged than playing in the Lawnmower bowl and getting the brakes beat off of us in the 1st round of an NCAA tourney only to turn the entire roster over the next year? I don't disagree that decent facilities are a recruiting draw but when the system is fundementally broken for mid-majors seems like throwing good money after bad.

Agree Graff! If the President were Rod McDavis or Nellis it would be different story. The current President is lacking in leadership skills. Read a copy of the most recent University student newspaper and you will find out what students and faculty think of the current President.

This is something that we can agree on OCF. We actually agree on a few things.

Not sure your buddy Coach Solich would agree with you OCF. He never had any problems with President Nellis. And if Nellis was out of his element what is that saying about Gonzalez?

Nellis was just following in Gordon Gee’s footsteps.

Michael -- your thoughts on Cromer while generally not correct, were at least based on your friendship with Tim. Gonzalez has done a better job than Nellis. There isn't a person on campus - from athletics, to faculty, to staff - that disagree. While she has her problems and I wish she was more outwardly pro athletics, she has been lightyears ahead of Nellis who was the worst president in the last 100 years.

Using the students protest -- which is a very liberal stance - to criticize Gonzalez is comical considering your voting record.

Now, I beg you. Either go spend the season on the Charlotte sideline like you did last year, or work with the new male AD to raise some money like you said you were going to. You should have no problem getting along with the leadership since you hate women so much.

I did see we picked up Tennessee in football for 2030 within the meeting

I don't think I said anything in this thread about Gonzalez being a great leader. I just said that Nellis was mediocre at best. He wasn't Sowle-level bad, but he was not an effective leader. He may have interfaced with athletics better than his successor, but on balance he was not a very good leader. I'm not carrying any water for Gonzalez, who I don't have any personal dealings with and who may be above her level competence as was Nellis, but I'll let others decide that.